[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Bush signed the Executive Order giving Cheney the authorization, though, so it amounts to the same thing, unless you think Bush didn’t know what he was giving Cheney permission to declassify.
[/QUOTE]
I think Bush didn’t know specifically what he was giving Cheney the authorization to declassify. If he did, why not just declassify it himself?
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Isn’t it usually “troublesome”?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard “turbulent” most often, but there are several versions.
I don’t think there’s any such play.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think Bush didn’t know specifically what he was giving Cheney the authorization to declassify. If he did, why not just declassify it himself?
[/QUOTE]
Deniability.
ETA, What kind of Chief Executive grants permission to declassify documents without knowing what’s going to be declassified?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Cheney was the one doing the declassifying, not Bush.
[/QUOTE]
Does he have that authority?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
. . . especially since we can be pretty sure that one other person did leak her name w/o being directed by Bush to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Eh? Who? And how do we know? (I hope you’re not talking about Novak, that would be a hijack.)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Eh? Who? And how do we know? (I hope you’re not talking about Novak, that would be a hijack.)
[/QUOTE]
See my first post.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why did Armitage release Plame’s name? Surely he wasn’t acting on input from Bush. Maybe Libby wasn’t either.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: How do we know he wasn’t acting on input from Bush?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not sure I follow you here.
First, to whom is the note written? Scott McClellen? If so, how does that implicate Bush in anything.
[/quote]
Because Scott McClellan is not “this Pres.”, Bush is.
Why is there a need to say the same thing about Libby as Karl if it isn’t about the release of Plame’s name? If it is then about Plame’s name, what else would Libby have been asked to do by Bush and why bring it up here? It becomes less parsimonious as you have to bring in more pieces.
I appreciate that you don’t want to nitpick about what parsimony means, but I’m having a hard time reconciling the definition of parsimonious with your alternatives, which require all sorts of different assumptions to be brought in to explain the given facts of this note.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: How do we know he wasn’t acting on input from Bush?
[/QUOTE]
It seems very unlikely that he would have been. He and Powell were trying to slow things down in the rush towards war, not speed them up. I’ve not heard anyone hypothesize that he was acting on orders from either Bush or Cheney. Now, he certainly could have been, and we can’t know for sure, but I think we are safe to assume that he wasn’t (since we have to assume one or the other).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It seems very unlikely that he would have been. He and Powell were trying to slow things down in the rush towards war, not speed them up. I’ve not heard anyone hypothesize that he was acting on orders from either Bush or Cheney. Now, he certainly could have been, and we can’t know for sure, but I think we are safe to assume that he wasn’t (since we have to assume one or the other).
[/QUOTE]
Powell and Armitage had the same boss. Despite his reservations, I think we remember which side Powell came down on, when it came time to talk to Congress.
Former Time reporter Matthew Cooper testified yesterday that Karl Rove was the first to tell him Plame was a CIA agent.
Rove’s lawyer says Cooper “burned” Rove – I’m not sure I follow the reasoning.
Story also here.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I don’t think there’s any such play.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it was Rocky II: “Yo, ain’t nobody gonna rid me of dis troublesome priest?”
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I appreciate that you don’t want to nitpick about what parsimony means, but I’m having a hard time reconciling the definition of parsimonious with your alternatives, which require all sorts of different assumptions to be brought in to explain the given facts of this note.
[/QUOTE]
Unless you really want to continue, I think I’ll just agree to disagree with you on this point. Or maybe I’ll start a separate thread about parsimony if I really want to go into this deeper.